One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The Films of 1962: The Manchurian Candidate

“There
are people who think of Johnny as a clown and a buffoon, but I do not. I
despise John Iselin and everything that Iselin-ism has come to stand for. I
think, if John Iselin were a paid Soviet agent, he could not do more harm to
this country than he’s doing now.”

--The
Manchurian Candidate (1962)

In
every presidential election, the term “Manchurian Candidate” gets lobbed like a
hand grenade -- by the press, and voters -- at some aspiring politico who is
feared to possess allegiances beyond the American populace.

Such
a candidate -- a Manchurian one -- is widely defined as an individual “seeking elective office who appears to
support one thing or group, but is actually supportive of another thing, or
another group.”

Most
of the time, accusations pointing out a real-life Manchurian Candidate are false,
or fit into the terrain of conspiracy theories.

But
the fact remains that there appears to have been -- beyond this individual and
his alleged actions -- a
web of Russian influences in this particular campaign, which has primarily appealed
-- ironically -- to nationalists and so-called “patriots” in the U.S. on the far right wing.

I
point out this contemporary scandal out not to score a political point, only to
note that right now, life seems to be
imitating art.

Fifty-five
year old art, actually.

The
1962 film, The Manchurian Candidate concerned a similar hard-right-wing
candidate, Johnny Iselin, who was secretly (and perhaps unwittingly) the tool
for Russian and Chinese communist interests.

These foreign powers interfered in
an American presidential election using brainwashing and murder.

So
on one hand, the film’s candidate, Iselin -- described as “a
clown and a buffoon” in the dialogue -- is a McCarthy-like hunter of
communists who makes rousing, patriotic speeches. But
on the other hand we have the knowledge that this candidate is a craven, grasping,
hapless tool controlled by insidious foreign forces that stand to benefit -- or
be rewarded -- by his election to the highest office in the land.

It
isn’t every day that a film made more than fifty-four years ago becomes part of
the 21st century national conversation, but there you have it.

Back
in 1962, the John Frankenheimer film (based on the novel by Richard Condon) was
generally considered far-fetched, imaginative, and wild in its plot and details.

The
Manchurian Candidate
was remade in 2004, but it is the black-and-white 1960s effort which remains
the superior work of art, in part because of the director’s careful use of
symbolism (mainly images of Americana), and in part because of its use of
contradictions, in terms of character and plotting, to constantly engender
surprise and shock.

It’s
true that the film has aged some, as all works of art do.

Instead of casting a
Korean man in a crucial supporting role, for instance, the filmmakers cast
Henry Silva…a Sicilian, in that role. When this character speaks, he does so in
the kind of broken English you hear in black-and-white World War II movies.
Accordingly, the performance doesn’t translate well to today’s more
culturally-aware context. Similarly,
there’s a talk, late in the film, of sending a Christmas card to a Buddhist
that is, if not in bad taste, at least unnecessarily insensitive.

These
are very small things, however, when one considers the remarkable artistry of
the film, and its weirdly prophetic nature.

After
all, consider the following: This film not only predicted the idea of a sort of
right-wing double-agent running for President, but imagined -- the year before
the assassination of JFK -- how a “loner” (or patsy) could possibly be
harnessed to inflict terrorism on a population.

“It’s the most rousing speech I’ve ever read.
It’s been worked on, here and in Russia, on and off, for over eight years.”

In
1952, during the Korean War, a troop of nine American soldiers are captured by
Russian forces, and helicoptered into Manchuria, where they are brainwashed by
a scientist from the Pavlov Institute.

The
soldiers are returned to the U.S. believing a false story that Raymond saved
their lives. He is decorated for this act of (fictional) gallantry, but in
truth, he is now an agent acting against the United States, though he does not
realize it.

Instead,
he is triggered to obey his American handler (his mother [Angela Lansbury])
when he sees a Red Queen in a deck of playing cards.

Disturbed
by nightmares of his brainwashing experience, Bennett Marco investigates
Raymond Shaw in his capacity as a military officer. He comes to befriend
Raymond, a not very “loveable” or likeable loner.

When
Raymond is ordered to kill a U.S. Senator Harding (John McGiver), and Harding’s
daughter, Jocelyn (Leslie Parrish) -- Raymond’s new wife -- he must obey. But his hatred for his mother grows.

When
he learns that he is to be the assassin at a political convention, and pave the
way for a “Manchurian” candidate, Raymond acts of his own accord, and earns the
medal that his country awarded him.

“I’m
on the point of winning for them the greatest foothold they would ever have in
this country. And they paid me back by taking your soul away from you…”

Although
I have described The Manchurian Candidate as prophetic, it also takes
inspiration from recent American history.

The
character of Johnny Iselin is clearly based on Republican senator Joseph
McCarthy (1908-1989); a homegrown demagogue who made a name for himself in the U.S.
Senate, and across the nation for his accusation that the U.S. Government had
been infiltrated by communist agents and sympathizers.

McCarthy
undertook a witch-hunt to find and slime his enemies on those terms (as Angela
Lansbury does in The Manchurian Candidate), and at one point claimed he had a
list of “205 names” representing communist sympathizers in the U.S. Government.
Later, he claimed to possess a paper with “57” such names instead.

In
The
Manchurian Candidate, Iselin first claims “207 names” and then, after
seeing a bottle of Heinz 57 Ketchup, likewise modifies his claim to “57”
communists.

The
shift to 57 is both a biting attack against McCarthy, and a joke at the same
time. The number 57 is easy for Iselin to remember because of effective product
placement. It appears on a ketchup bottle. And like Heinz and its ketchup,
Iselin is similarly advertising himself as a kind of brand name: a brave communist
hunter! Intriguingly, the 2016 “Manchurian Candidate” I discussed in my
introduction this review has pinpointed a modern corollary for this sort of witch
hunt, noting that
parts of America are now under Sharia law.

The
accusation is the same; only the face of the enemy has changed.

What
The
Manchurian Candidate suggests, via Iselin’s comical inability to settle
on a particular number of communist infiltrators, is that the man is indeed a
clown and buffoon, but a dangerous one who has the full attention of the
national press.

Reporters
record and mindlessly transmit across the nation (via TV) the McCarthy-like
senator’s every accusation, and that’s the point. Iselin is a huckster, but one
who understands how to manipulate television and thus make a name for himself.

As
Mrs. Iselin notes, no one questions that there are communist sympathizers in
the government after Johnny Iselin’s televised “stunt.” They only question the number of them. In
political conversations and rallies, lies are accepted as facts, even without
evidence, if they are repeated often enough.

What
The
Manchurian Candidate comments on, then, is the dangerous power of the Mass
Media to not only inform, but to mis-inform. The press can spread truth, or fiction with
equal power. It can highlight the words
of a statesman, or an unrepentant, attention-hungry liar. Many people in the audience cannot discern which
they are seeing, honest patriot, or serial liar. That’s a big problem
for democracy, and one not easily solved.

Iselin,
after all, gets the vice-presidential nomination of his party in the film, not
for statesmanship, not for political accomplishments, but for his crusade to
find communists in the U.S. Government, a crusade built entirely on fictional accusations. His lies are his experience. His lies are his portfolio. And he nearly
rises to the highest office of the land based on those lies.

Iselin’s
reflection, for example, is seen in a Lincoln portrait at one point. And at a party
for his son and Jocelyn, Iselin actually dresses as Lincoln. Throughout the
film, busts of Lincoln are seen in the Iselin study too.

Why
associate a McCarthy-esque charlatan with Abraham Lincoln, a man for whom so
many hold such high esteem?

Well,
some scholars have suggested that the
Iselins have selected Lincoln as a paragon to hide behind. They have gone
overboard with their Lincoln love, only to cloak their true anti-American
proclivities.

After
re-screening the film, I think there’s more specific commentary here. After
McCarthy (and indeed, today, with the nominee of 2016…), one must ask: what has happened to the party of Lincoln?

This
was the party that freed the slaves and ended slavery in America. How has it
gone from the heights of Lincoln to the depths represented by McCarthy?

How
has it gone from holding the fabric of a nation together, to manipulating the
press to tear that fabric apart for individual or personal gain?

The
multitudinous images of Lincoln throughout the film remind us how the noble
have fallen, how a party has fallen from greatness. It’s not just that the
Iselins’ hide behind Lincoln, it’s that they use his party as a base from which
to launch an attack on the greatness of our nation. They appear to be extreme
patriots, and are, in fact, betrayers.

The
Manchurian Candidate
also associates the Iselins’ nemesis (a very responsible and noble member of
the party of Lincoln, by contrast…), with a symbol of Americana even more
ingrained in our national psyche than that of Lincoln: the bald eagle.

When
Raymond declares his desire to marry Jocelyn, Senator Harding is seen in front
of a huge symbol of a bald eagle, with wings unfurled.

These wings seem to sprout, literally, from his shoulders. Similar eagle imagery is seen in association with him, later. When Raymond is a programmed assassin, he crosses the threshold into Harding's kitchen to murder the senator. Over the threshold, the symbol of an American Eagle is visible.

In the latter example, the symbol of the eagle showcases Raymond's point of transgression. The murder of Harding is the murder of liberty.

Also, consider the symbolism of Iselin wiping his cracker across the surface of a cake decorated as Old Glory, the American flag. It's a desecration. Just as Iselin's rise to office is a desecration to democracy, the Constitution, and to America.

So
what does the film’s symbolism reveal to us then, if taken in conjunction?

Iselin
is a McCarthy-esque demagogue who, if elected, would take the party of Lincoln
down, and literally serve a foreign power. Harding, by contrast (a man of the
same party) understands the real spirit of America, even though Mrs. Iselin has
called him a “communist.”

The
battle in the film is thus between those who stoop to exploit patriotism and
nationalism, and those who understand the real, true values of America, and
seek to protect it.

Raymond,
similarly, appears to be a loner and assassin, but he is actually the
courageous savior of American freedom, appropriately eulogized in the film’s
moving coda.

I
wrote in my introduction about the contradictions in The Manchurian Candidate,
and how well they function to craft this particular.

Consider,
in this film, we meet a man who is a bitter, nasty loner, but who desires only
to be lovable. Everyone seems to hate him, and he is a pawn of the villains.
But, as noted above, he gives his life to save our country. So the jerk and brainwashed assassin is also
a great patriot, taking matters into his own hands when he knows the army and
police are too late to act.

We
also meet a nefarious communist scientist/agent, who loves a good joke. He is
no Fu Manchu stereotype, but a jolly man who loves a good guffaw, and
encourages humor in his compatriots. He doesn’t present as dastardly, but as
jovial.

Similarly,
we encounter a monstrous (and indeed, incestuous…) woman who hides behind the
imagery of Abraham Lincoln, and calls out other Americans as communists when,
in fact, she is a communist agent herself.

Part
of the joy inherent in viewing this film, even several times, is grappling with
these contradictions, and the way they simultaneously shade and reflect
character, or identity.

What
are we to make of the eerie coincidence that Jocelyn shows up at the masquerade
party as the Red Queen, the very figure that “activates” Raymond, the wolf in
sheep’s clothing?

For
years, many have also speculated about Janet Leigh’s character, who befriends
Marco and engages in a weird conversation with him that also seems to suggest,
at least tangentially, that she is a spy sent to handle him.

This,
my friends, is a film with layers, and the contradictions are part of that
layering. We are asked to look beyond the surface, and search for the truth.

And
let’s face it, these contradictions are also a key part of the down-and-dirty
fighting of American political campaigns.

The camera
records people and events, but it can’t tell us who is lying, or who is being
truthful. It can’t expose the contradictions for us.

Instead,
the camera goes to the loudest blowhard, not the smartest or most judicious
individual. Our very media, our method
of discourse, appears to encourage and reward extreme behavior.

The Manchurian Candidate saw this problem clearly more than a
half-century ago (as did A Face in the Crowd in 1957.)

The
Manchurian Candidate
is a well-made, well-filmed effort. Consider, the moment, for instance, at the
Lady’s Garden Club, when the true nature of the event is exposed. Frankenheimer’s
camera goes around in a circle. Upon the completion of the circle, the ladies
have been replaced by the communist agents and audience.

Or
consider the karate fight sequence, between Silva and Sinatra, which is masterfully
choreographed and cut, and starts with a kind of lightning bolt or shock, as Marco recognizes Silva's character.

The
film’s craftsmanship holds up well in terms of relating the twisting narrative
to audiences, but the production’s use of symbol-laden imagery makes it a
document of value and enduring truth in terms of understanding American politics.

The Manchurian Candidate reminds
us that the most independent, patriotic voice in the room -- or on camera -- may
not, in the final analysis, be either.

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)